Where are the outraged moonbats? I'd have thought they would be all over this one with their knives out.

It's the weekend. They must all be out blowing thier unemployment checks and attending anti-capitalism rallies.

Nice post Dave. I think many on the left are in for a rude awakening come November when they find out that their class warfare propaganda and "oooh look at all the evil republicans" strategy has failed them yet again.

As for the GOP..... they will squeak by in this one and then be given the gift Hillary Clinton in 2008. We need to nominate someone who can beat her and who will restore real conservative values to the GOP. Cough Cough........... Mitt Romney

And here come the Hitler comparisons.

When it comes to class warfare, the Dems are classic glass house dwellers throwing stones. Talk about a gap between the haves and the have-nots. There's something inherently creepy about a party which is made up of millionaires, welfare moms and union members with no real representation for the entrepreneurial middle class which is the backbone of this country.

Dave

There's something inherently creepy about a party which is made up of millionaires, welfare moms and union members


You forgot billionare socialist Hungarians pulling the party strings Dave.

Can't leave out Georgey boy.

Millionaires, billionaires, the scum floats to the top.

Dave

During the Clinton administration, when numerous political scandals involving members of the federal government were all over the place, all the MSM wanted to write about was how great the economy was doing. (This, despite the fact that Clinton inherited a growing economy, yet left office with an economy and stock market in free-fall.)

The "Big Lie" only works when the MSM is in cahoots...and they certainly are this election season...

I predict that regardles of the outcome within a week after the elections, the stock market (which has been propped up on thin stilts) will crash from its artificial record highs and fall at minimum 1000 points.
Seeing how soft the housing market is, and how the average american is in debt over his head, the republican'ts will pull out fast and ahead of everyone else, after conning the moonbats into investing, laughing all the way to the bank as the middle class lose everything Emron Style.

I predict that within a month of the election the price of gas at the pump will rise a minimum of $1 a gallon. and pussibly as high as $3.50 a gallon by Christmas.

I also predict that after the elections Bush will suddenly change his mind on stradegy and make a swift pull out of Iraq, rather than face his failure there. He will hypocritically call it "a phased pull out to turn the majestic reins of government over to the Iraqis" rather than cutting and running.

There... I wouldn't want you to be disappointed that you didn't trap at least one of us in your sinister trap!

Love hugs and kisses
the phantom moonbat

Dave: When it comes to class warfare, the Dems are classic glass house dwellers throwing stones. Talk about a gap between the haves and the have-nots. There's something inherently creepy about a party which is made up of millionaires, welfare moms and union members with no real representation for the entrepreneurial middle class which is the backbone of this country.


Entrepreneurs are the most conservative of all groups. They typically fall in the most conservative end of the Republican party. What point were you making about them being represented in the democratic party???

There is a large representation of the middle class in the democratic party. Often post grad spanning the the ages. There is also a huge senior middle class constituency.

You can't just make stuff up just because you've got your ditto heads (who know nothing really)sitting on your heals ready to nodd and throw an obligatory republicanesque unrelated explative and personal insult on all non republicans.

Your article has no teeth. You are just stating that the Democrats say that people are struggling to make it and I say they are not. SO??

Now that the Republicans have nailed Bubbah, NASCAR, Arch Conservative and the trailer park crowd (thanks to talk radio), the welfare moms and millionaires are probably more represented amoung your party. Like the lion and the lamb. Beautiful.

Zedd, you might want to start off disguising your elitism by learning to spell 'bubba' properly.

Dave

Jet seems to suffer under the delusion that a single man, with the help of the clearly Satanic Rove, can artificially control both the stock market AND the price of global energy resources.

I would make fun of Jet for this, except he is far from alone in his fantasy. Apparently millions of Americans believe the same exact thing. And they are almost all going to vote for Democrats.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. The moonbats are coming to DC-town, and they are utterly batshit...

Bush and Rove Inc. may not have the power, but the people who need him to stay in office do, namely big business, big oil and Haliburton.

"Bush and Rove Inc. may not have the power, but the people who need him to stay in office do, namely big business, big oil and Haliburton."

For Halloween, I'm going to dress up as Haliburton.

You know, they're scary as shit.

EeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeK!

Jeeze jet why don't you apply for a job at Haliburton then?

Jet has this one nailed. The market is grossly out of whack. Reality will return soon after the elections. You think the sudden drop in fuel prices over the last few months has nothing to do with the elections? Just wait for gas to hit $3.50 per gallon by december.

I'm not so sure of the Iraq pull-out. I think Georgie boy is playing for pride on that one. He'd let every American soldier die before he admitted going in was a mistake. Unless of course he realizes he needs to pull out of Iraq in order to have enough troops to send into Iran. I'm not worried about him attacking N Korea. There's no oil there and he'd be scared shitless of pissing off China.
Kyle

"The moonbats are coming to DC-town, and they are utterly batshit..."
- RJ Elliott

I agree, yes, they're much worse than the chickenhawks.

Kyle, the recovery of the stock market has been sustained and gradual and began long before the very recent drop in gas prices. Even if prices do go up after the election, there's no reason to think the stock market won't continue to be strong so long as the Republicans control one house of Congress and the Democrats control the others. The key thing is to make sure the tax cuts don't get repealed, hitting the average taxpayer with a $3000 hike in taxes and kicking the economy straight in the nuts.

Dave

Dave:
I didn't know that there was an official way to spell Bubbah. I thought I could spell it whatever way I wanted to. Hmmm who knew. You must be really bright. You keep up with how to spell Bubbah?

So you did understand what I was saying though? I'm glad.

I have to warn you. Dont bother with the spelling corrections on my posts. You will get tired. I am feeling really lazy and privalleged these days and just don't feel complelled to over stress on such things. I just hit an important age milestone and I think I am hot stuff.... My logic however will give you a run for your money most of the time and occassionally give you a thourough spanking, do focus on that. Hang on tight.

So don't bother to correct. I wont feel dumb or put down. Besides its always funny that on these blogs whenever someone starts policing spelling, its inevitable that they will make a huge blunder in their next post.

So no worries bud. You sound like a HUGE BLAST to hang around. You Bubba police you.

Dave:

I was simply stating that the republicans have courted the lower class white voters and they have succeeded in getting them. That is not elitist is it?

Zedd, bubba is one of those words which can be a term of endearment from those who are part of the in-group and a derogatory term from outsiders. Rather like the N-word. When you use it and spell it wrong the conclusion has to be that you're not part of the in-group of bubba culture, and are therefore using it in a derogatory way.

So it's not the spelling correction which was important, but the attitude which you display in your use of bubba and in #21. You're clearly one of those who think that the working class voters the GOP has attracted are ignorant dupes, drawn to the party because they're white racists or because they're crazy religious zealots or some silly shit like that. And yes, it is elitist.

Dave

Dave, your economic hypotheses are totally cut off from reality, but I do admire your turns of phrase: "like a cornered nutria" had me rolling in my chair with laughter. Quite a mental image.

That said, yes, in some respects the economy seems to be going well, as BushCo is being careful to blast & trumpet; but as the Fed is pointing out, there are some ominous signs gathering in the distance: a rising inflation rate that isn't slowing, a slowing housing market that isn't rising, a slow increase in first-time jobless claims, & the main factor which BushCo is careful (& desperate) to hide at all costs: that the US currently is, for all intents & purposes, owned by China. Add to this that the average American has zero savings & higher personal debt than ever, having been assiduously trained by the megacorporations & their marketers to mindlessly & impulsively consume-Consume-CONSUME; and the increasing lag of US kids when it comes to education levels & training (we're hugely behind in math & sciences), & we have here an artifically inflated & thriving economy that, as Jet predicts, is in for a big fall in the near future.

I DON'T look forward to this with chortling; after all, I have interest in the market in the form of retirement shares in various money markets, & I was rather hoping to be able to retire when I finally got to 72, instead of having to work the rest of my miserable life. But all the lies & double-dealings of BushCo aren't going to cover the hard, cold facts, that we're in trouble. Big trouble. Alas, the normal American voter is too stupid, uninformed, and Homer-Simpsonlike to vote anything but the most egregious of factors impinging on his lardlike life, such as the current cost of gas. I agree with Jet: any bets as to how fast the price is going to shoot up once the elections are over? I reserve the right to say: I told you so, to all the optimists & True Believers in BushCo's voodoo economics, and rub your noses in it.

Sorry, Jet: I was on vacation. Where's all the other moonbats? Is it just you & me?

I should have added, I hope the Big Lie wins (Dem lie, that is) if only because a government controlled by one party is an unadulterated disaster & we need checks & balances. Besides, I'm sick of all the BushCo lies; I'd like to hear some new ones from the other side for a change. As for Georgie Boy, he's already making noises about "changing tactics" altho not goals - as if he actually knew what THAT meant. His top generals & even State Dept. weenies have been dropping hints L & R that there's a change in the wind, & Jr. himself has stated that it's time to give the Iraqis a definite line in the sand that they need to get their shit together asap & without excuses. Altho I doubt it's because the mounting US death toll bothers W; he's proven he's pretty unperturbed by Other People's Blood. As long as it isn't his own he's OK with any number of US deaths. Besides, they make for good photo ops where he can spill a few crocodile tears & prove what a compassionate prez he is. A few hugs, a few tears - cheap publicity for Bush.

Thank you Kyle, Nancy et al. Trust me, I pray that I am wrong.

Dave Nalle is a man of intelligence and integrity, and unlike others that do it to me, I don't just appear on his articles to shit on his opinions and be a smart ass.

This has nothing to do at all with personalities.

Having lived in just about every economic level in just the last five years I can tell you that I've seen his financial world and everyone else's through my own eyes.

So when I made those predictions they were from the gut.

The Stock Market
Having been involved in it, I've seen how it can be manipulated in order to make a president's economic state look good or bad. To tell you the truth, the president has very little to do with what level the stock market is at except to maybe appoint a Fed chairman.

Bush can push economic plans till he's blue in the face but if investors and congress don't play along with him; he's as powerless as all presidents are.

I've watched a group of heartless investors band together and quickly buy stock to drive the price up, wait, then slowly buy more until it hits their chosen level and to make sure that everyone else goes along with it, then suddenly sell everything, watching it plummet and laughing their asses off. Then when it hits a set low price, they buy it up from the suckers. Someone with 2000 shares could wind up with 3500 shares and spend little of their own money.

Right now the rich want to keep a republican congress in power so they're manipulating the stock values and knocking the Dow through the ceiling intentionally-not because it belongs there, but the difference is now they're using their own money, and that of their companies and they can't keep that up for long, so they've been timing it so that they can get out not long after the elections. In other words long enough to make the republican congress and the economy look good, but not enough to risk their own necks. Right now they're slowly secretly formulating plans to sell small amounts-a hundred here a hundred there so that the bubble will be owned by the common man instead of them. When the market falls, they'll already be out of it and safe, it's the common man's money that will vanish, much like the Emron debacle.

I pray that I'm wrong, I HOPE that I'm wrong

Gas Prices Anyone who tells you that the price of gas at the pump relies solely on the price of a barrel of oil is lying to you. The price of gas at the pump depends on two things.
1. Competition on the local level, and the price of oil FUTURES
Don't believe me? Here's one you can't argue with and is as obvious as the nose on your face. Drive down a stretch of road about 15 miles and pay attention to pump prices. One day, they'll all be the same price regardless of company. The next day they'll all jump 3-2 cents together. The next they'll vary as much as 20 cents a gallon. That's local.
When your pump prices suddenly shoot up, that's from Oil futures, the price at the pump isn't based on oil they already own and have refined at $60 a barrel, it's based on whether they think it's about to go to $65. I you want to hurt the economy; you take the price at the pump up 5-6 cents a gallon, then the next day do it again.
The well off will yell, "You big baby, that's only an increase of maybe fifty cents a tank!" but below a certain income level a dime here and a dime there counts dearly and that's something the upper income levels will never understand unless they've lived it.

As for Iraq...
Like it or not, Bush's own generals are starting to speak out against him. Tony Blair is losing his power rapidly for the same reason and Bush doesn't want to see his legacy go down the toilet, so he'll find some way to make a pull out of Iraq look like a good idea. It'll be a phased withdrawal based on good and sound reasoning, not cutting and running, which is what it'll be.

What has George Bush lost so much in approval ratings? Because he flatly refuses to admit he is wrong.
He was wrong to cut and run in Afghanistan before bin Laden was caught, leaving it to Nato to clean up his mess.
He was wrong to invade Iraq, thinking that the mission would be "accomplished" in a matter of weeks, without worrying about an exit strategy.

There's a reason this country is based on a system of checks and balances. A president of one party and a congress of another keep each other honest.

Now here's Bush's opinion on ABC this morning...

...Bush reiterated that he does not think Iraq is in the middle of a civil war and said he could not imagine any circumstances under which all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from that country before the end of his presidency.

"You mean every single troop out? No," he told Stephanopoulos. "The fundamental question is: Are we on our way to achieving a goal, which is an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East."

The Defense Department has confirmed the death of 78 soldiers this month in Iraq, taking the war's total fatalities to 2,784, and making October one of the bloodiest months in Iraq since the war began.

For the rest of this ABC NEWS article click anywhere in the colored section

Dave:

It looks as if you have really analysed this Bubba thing.

Yes there is such a thing as the Bubba vote. It referes to those potential voters who do not read that much and my feel unheard because of their economic and social station. It is thought that many of them are racists and unexposed. It is thought that many feel intimidated by the educated class, WASPS and white collar workers. Defining them is not a value judgement. It is acknowledging that they exist. And you know that they do. This group was not tapped into. They were Democrats (not voting dems) because their parents were since the Civil War. But they really weren't being courted.

As for being elitist it depends how you define it.

If this demographic (which DOES exists), consists of racists, I find their attitude dispicable. Don't you? If they choose to not read or expose themselves to anything in this great land of oportunity ESPECIALLY for white males, I don't consider it snobby to be turned off by that. There is nothing endearing or romantic about either of those character traits. They are deplorable. That is not elitist. That is a judgement based on my morals. I deplore racism and apathy. Do you not?

Why is it fine to poke at welfare moms and not fine to merely acknowledge that there are ignorant racists?

if the dems win in nov, its a victory for the terrorists. remember that. if you vote democrat in nov, you are voting for the terrorists.

All right jon, let's see you back that up with some facts... if you dare. That's about as ridiculous as saying voting republican is voting for world peace!

I am amazed no one has bothered to correct the gross statistical manipulation in this article. Dave's statistical manipulation is on par, and even exceeds, the statistical manipulation of Dem talking points. I urge anyone with any mathematical and logical skills to sit down and think about how many holes and twists there are in his statistics. I don't mean to deny the economy is doing well in general, but there are so many ways of looking at it and there are many people that are worse of in many ways than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Take this for example:

My favorite bit of truth twisting from Dean is when he writes "Only 19% of workers have guaranteed pensions today, compared with 39% in 1980. And under Mr. Bush, retirement coverage, including both guaranteed pensions and 401(k)s, fell almost three percentage points, to just less than 46% in 2004." Apparently he doesn't think we can do math, because what his own figures tell us is that with 401(k)s taking over from poorly performing company pensions, 7% more workers have retirement plans than did in 1980.

Apparently Dave doesnt think we can do math. What his own numbers tell us is that from 1980 to 2000 the percent of workers with retirement plans rose from 39% and peaked at 49% under Clinton in 2000. Under Bush it dropped by 3% points to 46% in 2004.

All Dave has really told us is the reform of the internal revenue code by Congress in 1978 (which made 401ks possible) has made it easier for employers to provide some form of pension plan because 401ks are cheaper and less risky for employers than gauranteed pensions. Congrats to the Congress of '78. Now how is this at all relevent to what Bush has done to the economy? Bush has succesfully REVERSED the upward trend in % of workers with 401ks and pensions by decreasing it from a Clinton peak of 49% to 46% in four years (nearly 1% a year). Perhaps that doesnt even mean much - it could be attributed to a lot of reasons, not just Bush. But it means a whole hell of a lot more than Dave's congratulations to the Congress of 1978.

There are countless examples of such manipulation throughout the article. I again urge anyone with a critical mind to look through Dave's and the Dem's statistics. Perhaps they don't mean what the Dem's tell you they mean. But they also don't mean what Dave tells you they mean.

everybody relax, I am here.

firstly, I am not sure 'firstly' is a word

secondly I would place a yes vote on Rove being satan. it's ok, though... that is how the game gets played.

which segueways nicely into my 'thidly' thought about how talking points and what simps people are. No one on the planet is better than filling the airwaves with complete fucking lies as talking points when those 527 (directly traceable back to Bush) did those fabrications on Kerry's war record.

Man that pissed me off, especially coming from a team that didn't serve one day in combat... then got kicked out.

Now, if you want to assail Kerry as being an elitist, out of touch, rich and priveledged East Coast tax and spend liberal... whatever. That doesn't trouble me.

I can assure you that neither I, nor my company, are doing better than they were six years ago. You can bet your ass I will be voting Democrat this year.

I tell you, reader, to vote. It's even ok if you vote Republican. Just make sure you participate.

sorry Nalle, don't take that last one personally. I enjoy your work, mostly. It is too bad you work for the wrong team, the one doing nothing for anyone who isn't a huge corporation.

as least you are cogent. Speaking of that, where is Barger? He called me a church robber on my last piece. That is good social commentary.

also know that Gonzo Marx is probalby lurking only seconds away. He is one of those damn progressives like me.

And I just had to mention this one after looking at the statistics Dave links but fails to mention in the article:

Dave says in response to Dem House Leader Nancy Pelosi: Rather than many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, savings and investing rates are rising for the first sustained period since 1982, suggesting that more Americans than ever before have excess income.

I suggest anyone click on the link and observe the sharp downward line in the graph of personal savings rate over the past several years. I think Dave was rather hoping you didnt, but I also recognize the "sustained period" of increase he speaks of. It occurred 2001 - 2003 when collective savings rose from 132 billion to 175 billion - a relatively small increase especially considering Americans paid 236 billion less in taxes in 2003 than 2001.

This two year increase in response to tax cuts has ended. The savings rate is currently in the most precipitous drop since the index began in 1952. For the first time since data collection began the savings rate is negative. As of 2005 the net collective savings rate was NEGATIVE 34 billion. This is a decrease of 209 BILLION since 2003. That is by far the most dramatic decrease in collective net savings since data collection began.

I dont know about you all but Dave's definition of "sustained increase" is a little different than mine. Again, I urge you all to click on the link and see for yourselves the precipitous drop in savings rate observable on both the graph and on the table.

Well good, I'm glad no one has any problems with my assessment of the situation in #25.

daring article even if filled with shady statisticulating as peti points out...

since the comparison made is between Democrat and Nazi propaganda techniques I doubt that Dave will have much trouble from the thought police

regarding comment #28 by Jon

I think that was satire. Really, I do. Shit, I hope it was. I mean, people who really think that generally can't read or write, can they?

Jon, please clarify -

On top of my posts 31 and 34 I would like to add:

What's more, while too many are certainly uninsured, the actual percentage of the population without insurance has remained stable for decades at about 16% when you count in Medicaid, and in fact the percentage of the population covered by private insurance has been steadily increasing, up about 5% over the last 20 years.

Again, click on the link. First of all it's worth noting: Under Clinton the percent uninsured dropped from 15.3% to 14.2% from '93 to '00, while under Bush it has increased from 14.2% to 15.9%. That's an increase of 1.7%. Dave may think "ahh shucks it's all about 16%" but the fact is, that 1.7% increase in uninsurance rate represents 5 million people in the U.S.

Second of all it represents a trend reversal - under Clinton uninsurance decreased 1.1%, under Bush it increased 1.7%, despite trillions in tax cuts.

Third, Dave seems to have committed a woopsee when he said "the percentage of the population covered by private insurance has been steadily increasing, up about 5% over the last 20 years." I think he was still in uninsurance mode because this statement is the exact opposite of what the table shows. In 1987 (the first year of data) the percentage of the U.S. with private insurance was 75.5%. It dropped to 70.2% under Bush Sr in 1993. It peaked again at 71.9% under Clinton. And then it precipitously fell to 67.7% in 2005 under Bush, again, despite tax cuts. The percent of the population with private insurance has decreased 7.8% from 1987 to 2005 almost entirely in the Bush Sr and Bush Jr years. I dont know where Dave get's the idea private insurance rates have increased. Look at the tables.

You know what they say Lono, but a thousand monkeys at typewriters and sooner or later...

Please read my #31,34 and 38 carefully. I think you will find they thoroughly discredit Dave. Many of his other statistics are just as twisted/flat out wrong, but right now I dont have time to go through them all.

yeah and the bible's a lot longer than #28.

I continue to maintain that Dave, while a fine & entertaining writer generally, is out in fairyland when he takes up his version of the wishful thinking BushCo economy that everything is just peachy keen & getting better for the rank & file. I live in the rank & file, & among the rank & file, and it is NOT getting better. Jet, unfortunately, you're NOT wrong. I've seen it too, and we're not alone. Meanwhile the Bushites are busy covering ass as fast & hard as they can to maintain the lies of Fearless Leader, while the idiot average voter Americans out there are voting depending on what they paid at the pump this week. The fools. I hope like hell I'M wrong about that. Maybe for once they'll actually use a brain cell or two & vote against the GOP, and refuse to sell their votes as cheaply & idiotically as BushCo & the GOP hope they will.

Jon #28

Are you joking??? Which terrorists? Which group is so afraid of George Bush that they have decided to wait until he is out of office before striking??

I do believe that the attack on 911 was during a republican administration.

Please let logic reign.

If Dave's statistics and interpretations were correct, it would actually be very meaningfull, as things like personal savings rate are important economic indicators.

Lono:

I not sure if we should ask Jon to express himself. He might just do so and then we will go to bed feeling a great deal of concern for the current state of our country and the future of this great nation.

I think all that needed to be said, Jet sums up perfectly in #39.

I don't mean to deny the economy is doing well in general, but there are so many ways of looking at it and there are many people that are worse of in many ways than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

I'm glad you at least acknowledge the overall state of the economy. And I don't disagree on the fact that there are individuals who are worse off. There are always going to be individual examples which buck the trend, but the trend is one of economic improvement even if it doesn't benefit everyone.

Apparently Dave doesnt think we can do math. What his own numbers tell us is that from 1980 to 2000 the percent of workers with retirement plans rose from 39% and peaked at 49% under Clinton in 2000. Under Bush it dropped by 3% points to 46% in 2004.

You missed the point here. I didn't say that Bush had created the rise in overall retirement benefits. I was just pointing out that Dean was attempting to blame Bush for the switch from pensions to 401Ks which both took place before Bush was in office, and is also not actually a bad thing since 401Ks provide far better return than most pensions. THAT is the point.

There are countless examples of such manipulation throughout the article.

Which are presumably no more manipulations than this one which you misconstrued is.

I suggest anyone click on the link and observe the sharp downward line in the graph of personal savings rate over the past several years. I think Dave was rather hoping you didnt, but I also recognize the "sustained period" of increase he speaks of. It occurred 2001 - 2003 when collective savings rose from 132 billion to 175 billion - a relatively small increase especially considering Americans paid 236 billion less in taxes in 2003 than 2001.

All of the comparisons in the article are based around the general assumption of the economy down-talkers that the Bush term in office has been a disaster for the economy. So what I'm pointing out here, as should have been obvious, is that the five-year period from 2001 to 2005 showed a dramatic improvement in personal savings compared to previous five year periods. Yes, there's ONE bad year in those five, but the overall total is still impressive. There are brief dips all over the graph. Let's see what happens to the personal savings and investing rate if real estate prices drop.

This two year increase in response to tax cuts has ended.

Damn, maybe we need more tax cuts then. I do like to see you admitting that tax cuts benefit people, though.

You've got a point on the insurance, I did miscalculate on the increase in private insurance. Not sure how that happened, but I'll correct the article. Wouldn't want to commit the same wrong as the Dems.

Dave

Dave- Dave- Dave-
Another article you've written (more like fabricated) that is so full of holes one hardly knows where to put the first finger to staunch the flood of untruth. So I will just copy my rebuttal to you at the end of the Air America bankrupt thread so that anyone who cares can see that you lack any sort of mathmatical or economic accuity in these matters (since it is relevant to your "rosy" economy scenario).

your quote-
"Your one link to the census does not even support your argument."

Then you did not chase down the single year data as I suggested. (This forum limits the # of links per post). There is a definite increase in poverty from 2000 to present. The link you provided only addresses age 65 & over. I am arguing total #'s and you are citing a specific group. Get with the argument. From 2000 (31.6 million) to 2005 (37.0 million). More people in poverty as defined by the Census Bureau.

For (uninsured) healthcare, lets use your numbers - 1.7% less (difference of % total covered from the peak year 2000 (85.8%) to 2005 (84.1%)) of roughly 290 million population equals 4.9 million more uninsured (you see less people are insured when the % goes down). That would have to be a conservative figure (no pun intended but relevant nonetheless) because we have roughly 10 million more in population right now and some of those are uninsured. And none of these numbers discuss under-insured - the point is it is a problem and trickle-on economics doesnt solve it. It seems that we have to keep trying it though and every time it is proven not to do the things it is promoted to do. What it does do is make the wealthy even wealthier at all of our expense as the costs of goods and services (including police and fire and highways) inevitably rise to keep inflation in check. Local and state taxes usually increase as well to make up for the budget shortfalls. Classic shove the shit to Shorty. It is piss poor policy - it has never worked and never will. But the faithful trot it out ad nauseum as sound fiscally conservative policy. Crap is what it is.

BTW - do you notice the rough correlation in these numbers?

The CBPP is a non-partisan analysis group. You can consider them leftists if you like because their analysis doesnt tow the party line. You seem concerned that the left points out the shortfalls of the economy (and not the pluses) but if the shortfalls are real, you also seem quite eager to massage the numbers (is it because you are a cheerleader for Bush and his cronies?). Unlike you (follow me here), I wasnt a big fan of the Clinton economy (not saying you were) - meaning that I am an equal opportunity critic. You are a party-line critic - meaning your critically analytical skills sway in the political breeze. Wet your finger and hold it high - thoughtful approach.

You criticize me for using secondary sources yet you cite HUD as a source for median income data! At least my source was dealing with recent Census data and not extrapolating 1990 median income levels with a little massaging from BLS statistics. The HUD median income levels dont correlate with newer census data. Not even a good try on your part.

(And you criticize Pelosi's #'s?! You must search around til you find a number you like and suddenly its gospel!!) Dude - save it why dont you...your stuff is too easily picked apart - just like stewed chicken!

BriMan, don't post a response to another article on this one, it just confuses people. The antecedents make no sense, amusing though your misconceptions and distortions are in their own right. I realize your starved for attention, but this isn't a good way to get it. Go back to that thread and read my response there.

Dave

Yes there is such a thing as the Bubba vote. It referes to those potential voters who do not read that much and my feel unheard because of their economic and social station. It is thought that many of them are racists and unexposed. It is thought that many feel intimidated by the educated class, WASPS and white collar workers. Defining them is not a value judgement. It is acknowledging that they exist. And you know that they do. This group was not tapped into. They were Democrats (not voting dems) because their parents were since the Civil War. But they really weren't being courted.

And you know all of this about them how, exactly? Or is it just your prejudices speaking? The people I know who fit into your definition demographically read books, have college degrees in many cases, and are not any more racist than anyone else.

As for being elitist it depends how you define it.

Your last paragraph pretty much defines an elitist attitude.

If this demographic (which DOES exists), consists of racists, I find their attitude dispicable. Don't you?

I would, except that the racist epithet is something which the white leftist elite sticks on them our of pure defensiveness.

If they choose to not read or expose themselves to anything in this great land of oportunity ESPECIALLY for white males, I don't consider it snobby to be turned off by that.

It's snobby to assume that because they choose to vote Republican they therefore MUST be unlettered and unread. You base this conclusion on your prejudices in total ignorance of the group you're stereotyping.

There is nothing endearing or romantic about either of those character traits. They are deplorable. That is not elitist. That is a judgement based on my morals. I deplore racism and apathy. Do you not?

Of course, that's why I have to oppose the Democratic party which builds its power on class warfare and racial exploitation.

Why is it fine to poke at welfare moms and not fine to merely acknowledge that there are ignorant racists?

How is your bigotry against an entire segment of the population any different from racism?

Dave

OK Dave - your quote
"All of the comparisons in the article are based around the general assumption of the economy down-talkers that the Bush term in office has been a disaster for the economy. So what I'm pointing out here, as should have been obvious, is that the five-year period from 2001 to 2005 showed a dramatic improvement in personal savings compared to previous five year periods. Yes, there's ONE bad year in those five, but the overall total is still impressive. There are brief dips all over the graph. Let's see what happens to the personal savings and investing rate if real estate prices drop."

Prove it. Show me graphs where the majority of people are showing improved savings - majority as in middle class. I concede that the wealthy are saving a ton. And I dont want to see AVERAGE savings figures either - the wealthy skew those upward statistically (you do know what statistics are right?)

Your quote again-
"As for the 'war on the middle class', one of the key talking-point terms which Dobbs and others use again and again, it's a purely ridiculous claim. The truth is that in the past five years the reason you've seen a reduction in the size of the middle class is that those in that income bracket are moving rapidly upwards in wealth at a dramatic rate. The 'upper middle class' with assets between $100,000 and $500,000 has added a remarkable 24.5 million people, about a fifth of the total population. This group has added about 700,000 members in the past year and also seen their average debt drop by about 8%. Their individual income is up, reaching $64,600 a year on average. This isn't war on the middle class, this is a boom of success and prosperity for the middle class, so much so that it may just push them out of the middle class and make them rich."

Prove this one as well - your link didnt work for shit. The increase of those in poverty from Y2000 (which I have already shown to be true) are people who were previously middle-class (5 -6 million people depending on who defines poverty). You are talking huge successes and I am talking 5-6 million failures (census data remember). We already know some people are getting fabulously wealthy off of the war - how many of those fall in that category? My suspicion is that this economy w/o a war would make your unbelievable numbers even less impressive than they probably already are.

Dave-
dont lecture me on what to post and where. You hadnt responded when I posted this response and it is totally relevant to this thread.

But I am sorry if I confused you - not sure how to stop from doing that.

I still dont see the response you alluded to Dave - criticizing me w/o having done what you said?

Starved for attention? Very amusing consider the number of posts you log on this sight.

Maybe you should take up a hobby that doesnt require synaptic processing.

BriMan, I'd just rather you didn't derrail this discussion to serve your ego. My response is now on the other post. I've been out of town, so I haven't had a chance to respond until now.

Dave

Please read my #31,34 and 38 carefully. I think you will find they thoroughly discredit Dave. Many of his other statistics are just as twisted/flat out wrong, but right now I dont have time to go through them all.

You address what, 3 or 4 of a score of points about economic misrepresentation I make in the article? And most of those 'discreditings' are pretty damned weak. Keep trying, though.

Dave

Dave-
You would rather I didnt derail this discussion to serve my ego? That's ripe - what you mean is you'd rather I didnt bruise yours with facts!

First you wanted me to go back and read your response (that you hadnt posted) and now you are apologizing for being out of town. Man, you need to get it straight and cut out the BS. Just say it or save it.

Prove it. Show me graphs where the majority of people are showing improved savings - majority as in middle class. I concede that the wealthy are saving a ton. And I dont want to see AVERAGE savings figures either - the wealthy skew those upward statistically (you do know what statistics are right?)

I'm still trying to find exactly those statistics, because I agree that they're relevant and interesting. But in the process I've found something very telling using tables at the BLS. It seems that income from interests, dividends and rental property has been up pretty substantially, especially for those in the middle income groups. The BLS is lagging behind on their data, but here's a start:

Bottom Quintile - from 2001 to 2004 a 30% increase
Second Quintile - from 2001 to 2004 a 34% increase
Third Quintile - from 2001 to 2004 a 25% increase
Fourth Quintile - from 2001 to 2004 a 24% increase
Highest Quintile - from 2001 to 2004 a 37% increase

Now remember that several of these years were still during the recession, yet we see substantial growth in investment and similar income in all income groups, with the strongest at the top, but only by a small margin, followed very closely by the bottom two quintiles. You wouldn't see this kind of growth during a recession if people weren't expanding their savings, investment and real estate holdings.

Interesting stuff.

Prove this one as well - your link didnt work for shit.

Some extra characters got picked up with the link. I fixed it. Go check it again. I think you'll find the article interesting, though I'm sure you'll do everything you can to dismiss the rather substantial research.

The increase of those in poverty from Y2000 (which I have already shown to be true) are people who were previously middle-class (5 -6 million people depending on who defines poverty). You are talking huge successes and I am talking 5-6 million failures (census data remember).

Sorry, missed you showing this to be 'true'. Where is your data showing a movement of middle class people into poverty. It's not born out by anything I've ever seen. The normal dynamic is for people in all income groups to move upwards relatively quickly and then move back down at a slower rate over an extended period of time.

We already know some people are getting fabulously wealthy off of the war - how many of those fall in that category?

Anyone can invest in defense industries if they have something in their 401k or in personal investments.

My suspicion is that this economy w/o a war would make your unbelievable numbers even less impressive than they probably already are.

So you're saying the war is a good thing? You think the benefits aren't outweighed by higher oil prices and an expanding deficit? That seems extremely unlikely.

Dave

You would rather I didnt derail this discussion to serve my ego? That's ripe - what you mean is you'd rather I didnt bruise yours with facts!

First you wanted me to go back and read your response (that you hadnt posted) and now you are apologizing for being out of town. Man, you need to get it straight and cut out the BS. Just say it or save it.

Ok, baby steps for you, BriMan.

I was out of town so I couldn't respond to your comment
This hurt your feelings so you spammed this post
I was back from my trip so I responded to your comment as requested
I told you about it so you could show some courtesy and respond in the right place
You bitched and threw some insults, still on the wrong thread.

Dave

I didn't say that Bush had created the rise in overall retirement benefits. I was just pointing out that Dean was attempting to blame Bush for the switch from pensions to 401Ks which both took place before Bush was in office, and is also not actually a bad thing since 401Ks provide far better return than most pensions. THAT is the point.

Lets look at what Dave tells us: 1. 7% more workers have retirement plans than did in 1980.

Lets look at what Dave doesnt tell us: 1.All of this growth took place prior to Bush coming into office.

2. Since Bush has come into office, 3% fewer of the population have retirement plans (aprox 9 million people).

3. This is one important area of the economy that is on a downward trend.

You construe a downard trend as an upward trend by fiddling with the timeperiod.

So what I'm pointing out here, as should have been obvious, is that the five-year period from 2001 to 2005 showed a dramatic improvement in personal savings compared to previous five year periods.

Flat out wrong. Americans saved 456.5 billion in total 2001-2005. They saved 1050.6 billion total in 1996-2000. They saved 1473 billion total in 1991-1995. I have to go back to 1967-1971 to find a period with less savings than 2001-2005. Of course the savings rate was over 9% higher then than it is today, and the difference is accounted for by population. If I adjust for population, Americans saved less in 2001-2005 than any other 5 year period since data collection began. Not to mention the fact that 2004 set a record low for savings rate, a record broken the next year in 2005 when for the first time the savings rate went negative.

A downward trend, manipulated as an upward trend or as you say, "sustained increase."

Can you edit your comments too?

And again, I urge everyone to check out the link on savings rates in the article and see for themselves Dave's idea of an "sustained increase."

Damn, maybe we need more tax cuts then. I do like to see you admitting that tax cuts benefit people, though.

If we're limiting ourselves to the realm of savings rates, then 100s of billions in tax cuts resulting in a 43 billion 2 yr increase in total savings, followeed by a 209 billion 3 year decrease, is obviously not very affective. Of course tax cuts may help in other ways, but they certainly don't help the savings rate, which is negative for the first time since data collection began.

Let's look at the rosy picture Dave paints (forgive me for the hackneyed expression):

"because overall retirement plans are up,"

"Rather than many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, savings and investing rates are rising for the first sustained period since 1982, suggesting that more Americans than ever before have excess income."

"So what I'm pointing out here, as should have been obvious, is that the five-year period from 2001 to 2005 showed a dramatic improvement in personal savings compared to previous five year periods."

And of course, he was saying private insurance ownership rates are up, but has corrected the article.

OK so lets contrast this picutre with the statistics Dave has linked to IN THE ARTICLE.

1. The percent of workers with retirement plans dropped 3% (aprox 9 million people) from 49% to 46% in 2000-2004 (the last year of data).

2. Americans saved 209 billion less in 2005 than in 2001.

3. Americans saved less in total 2001-2005 than in any other 5 year period since 1967-1971, which is only because the population was less in 1971.

4. The savings rate was negative in 2005 for the first time since data collection began.

5. Uninsurance dropped from 15.3% to 14.2% under Clinton 1993-2000. Under Bush uninsurance has increased from 14.2% to 15.9%, or 1.7%. That's 5 million more people uninsured.

6. The percentage of people with private health insurance was 71.9% under Clinton 2000. And then it precipitously fell every year to 67.7% in 2005 under Bush in 2005. Contrast this with the 1.7% increase in private insurance rates 1993-2000 under Clinton.

OK so we've covered retirement, savings and insurance. What else?

You address what, 3 or 4 of a score of points about economic misrepresentation I make in the article? And most of those 'discreditings' are pretty damned weak. Keep trying, though.

These honestly, Dave, were the first 4 points I examined. In one I find you have made a miscalculation saying private insurance rates have increased 5% when in fact they have decreased 4.2% since 2000 and 7.8% since 1987. In another I find you rounding off a 1.7% (5 million people) increase in uninsurance rates under bush to 0. In another I find you selectively chosing 2001-2003 as a period for savings rates, ignoring the decreases in 2004-2005, the record low set in 2005, and the overall record low savings of 2001-2005. And in another I find you construing a 3% decrease in retirement plan holdership under Bush as "overall retirement plans are up." The first 4 points I examine either contained gross miscalculations, or misrepresentations. Why should I read on?

And for further reading material, I suggest my posts 31,34,and 38. Forgive the lengthy posts please, but these are important statistics, even if they are boring.

Great article Dave. Timely considering the DOW just broke new ground with an all time high. Odd there was no news about it. Bush must not be manipulating the MSM like we all thought.

Funny how some on this thread are all caught up in the pension plan thing. Thank God (said the athiest) I have a 401k that I can control. Just wish the limits weren't so low.

Keep up the good work.

I love the way that people are picking at nits here while ignoring the main point. Do any of you honestly think the economy overall is doing badly? If you agree with the negativity of the denocrats I submit that you're not being honest with us or yourself. They can blow all the smoke they want, but it's dollars in the pocket that get peoples attention, and on average Americans are about $2500 a year better off just from the tax cuts.

". Why should I read on?"

one wonders why you read any of this in the first place with your obvious biases.

Good article, Dave. Most folks judge the economy the only way they can, by their own wallets. If you're struggling, all the positive economic indicators mean nothing to you at all.

As Jet pointed out (possibly in another post, sometimes they all seem to be related), Bush may not be manipulating the market, but those who backed his election & his regime certainly are, just as they're also the ones manipulating gas prices, driving them down prior to the election in order to bolster GOP candidates' chances of winning. Maybe Bush himself can't do all this, but those who bought him certainly can - and do.

Bush may not be manipulating the market, but those who backed his election & his regime certainly are, just as they're also the ones manipulating gas prices,

So you're saying we should vote against whatever the people who are secretly behind strengthening and growing the economy want, Nancy? That seems like a bad idea. If they were profiteering on gas and causing the stock market to crash should we vote FOR them, then?

Dave

At least by voting against their puppets they lose some of their control, if only temporarily. Frankly IMO the only guarantee the public has of freeing itself of those who 'own' all us working serfs is the kind of violence that we do not use here in the US. Maybe we should. In any event, continuing those who have sold out to the ultrarich & corporate manipulators is even more disastrous. Besides, do you seriously think the bastards aren't going to jack the prices back up as soon as the elections are over? You DO live in la-la land, don'tcha, Pollyanna?

I love the way that people are picking at nits here while ignoring the main point. Do any of you honestly think the economy overall is doing badly? If you agree with the negativity of the denocrats I submit that you're not being honest with us or yourself. They can blow all the smoke they want, but it's dollars in the pocket that get peoples attention, and on average Americans are about $2500 a year better off just from the tax cuts.

I even admitted the economy overall is doing better. Not great, but better. That's pretty obvious. However, I would strongly disagree with your characterization of record low savings rates (negative) in 2005, record low savings for the period 2001-2005, a 3% decrease in pension holdership under Bush, a 1.7% increase in uninsurance under Bush, and a 4.2% decrease in private insurance holdership under Bush as "picking at nits."

". Why should I read on?"

one wonders why you read any of this in the first place with your obvious biases.

Hmm.. you obviously didnt bother to read the rest of my post. I merely broke down Dave's statistics and left the interpretation to you. If you don't like the statistics I listed that's not my problem. Take it up with Dave, he's the one who cited them. Besides Dave confessed he made a calculation error and has corrected the article. I can't be that biased if Dave agrees with me for once.

"Can numbing repetition of lies about the economy turn voters into zombies who vote against their own best interests?"

I don't know, Dave. Let us know how it turns out for you.

and it appears that peti , and others , have hit upon the nut when it comes to arguments like those presented in this Post...

namely incomplete analysis, lack of consistency in data crunching, and not taking into account all Variables in working the raw data into proper frameworks for statistical extrapolation

cherry picking, or "apples to oranges" occurs quite a bit on BOTH sides when looking at this data...

in many of the cases mentioned, it is readily apparent that BOTH partisan sides make good points, and bad ones...

such as..the overall numbers don't look too bad, when utilizing averages... but they DO look less than stellar under focused extrapolation in certani segments of the data...

the averages look great, but if you take out the top and bottom 5% and rework the numbers, the picture if FAR different

and there ishow people get manipulated, presented with raw data, or partisan analysis..most folks have neither the time nor the inclination to dig and calculate for themselves

thus allowing so-called "experts" to spout what they will and use incomplete or blatantly false extrapolations to be utilized for partisan purposes

i tend to stay away when some people get into these topics for just that Reason myself...my own look at the Info conflicts with other's interpertations

and i am just too fuckign disgusted to do what pleaseexcusetheinterruption has done in showing how soe data can be cherry picked, or use incomplete data, to falsely *prove* anything you want...

or even to find what you expect

bottom line...unless you are willing to dig for yourself...take ANY source of analysis with a grain of salt

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

I'd like to think the best course of action is looking at and interpreting the data for oneself using unbiased sources (Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office etc...I also find the center on budget and policy priorities useful, cbpp.org, though on occassion they misrepresent things, but they have links to good data) that have clearly presented tables and graphs of raw data. Obviously not everyone has the time, energy, skills, or objectivity but in an ideal world...

New readers, I challenge you to carefully read through 31,34,38 and 59. Please forgive the long posts and presumptuous attitude, but I think they point out glaring miscalculations and misrepresentations in the article.

Lets look at what Dave tells us: 1. 7% more workers have retirement plans than did in 1980.

Lets look at what Dave doesnt tell us: 1.All of this growth took place prior to Bush coming into office.

The article is NOT about what Bush's role here is. He's not even running for office. The article is about how the the left is misrepresenting the economy. In this particular instance the deception is dean's attempt to make it look like 401ks are a bad thing and that an overall growth in retirement savings is not good because it's 401ks instead of pensions. People ARE better off than they were

2. Since Bush has come into office, 3% fewer of the population have retirement plans (aprox 9 million people).

3. This is one important area of the economy that is on a downward trend.

Possibly, though I think that other factors are at work which you're not taking into consideration. But this is NOT the argument which Dean was making. If he'd made the argument which you make then I wouldn't have picked him as an example here. There's a HUGE difference between running down the economy for partisan reasons and pointing out legitimate problems. You'll note that I didn't use as examples anyone who was critical of the deficit or high levels of spending, because those are legitimate and genuine concerns.

A downward trend, manipulated as an upward trend or as you say, "sustained increase."

Wrong. Take a look at the figures going back more than 5 years. There was a steady downward trend in savings throughout the Clinton years, starting in 1992 and bottoming out in 2001, after which there was an increase - a recovery more specifically from 2002 to 2004, followed by a bad year in 2005 - which I think you may be right in saying results from the impact of the tax cuts wearing off.

And again, I urge everyone to check out the link on savings rates in the article and see for themselves Dave's idea of an "sustained increase."

3 years isn't sustained?

Damn, maybe we need more tax cuts then. I do like to see you admitting that tax cuts benefit people, though.

If we're limiting ourselves to the realm of savings rates, then 100s of billions in tax cuts resulting in a 43 billion 2 yr increase in total savings, followeed by a 209 billion 3 year decrease, is obviously not very affective. Of course tax cuts may help in other ways, but they certainly don't help the savings rate, which is negative for the first time since data collection began.

You have to assume that some of that money from the tax cuts also went to pay expenses. And how much of an increase it was depends on what you use as your base point. If you use the point at which savings bottomed out in 2001, then for the next 3 years it's a $117 billion increase, and if you include 2005 it's still a $80 billion increase.

But let's get a bit farther into the figures since you want to play with numbers. What's going on here if you look at the specific components is that there was a massive increase in 2003 and 2004 in the acquisition of financial and tangible assets. In other words, people put money in investments and bought new houses. Along with that they acquired a lot of mortgage debt. Then in 2005 they still had that debt, had acquired their home or other assets, and were paying debts and expenses at a higher rate as a result - paying for their new homes and stock portfolios. The number for 2005 appears to have gone negative largely because of their increase in mortgage and personal debt caused by their higher rate of spending on investments and tangible assets. They took money out of the bank and put it into better investments.

So that negative savings for one year has to be considered in the context of what they gained in real long-term investment value in the immediate previous years, reflected in the really substantial increase in NET WORTH. Do you see that figure?

During the 1990s net worth was mostly limping along, picking up a bit towards the end of the decade. It then dropped during the recession in 2001 and 2002, and came back stronger than even the best years of the 90s in 2003, 2004 and YES 2005. We're talking increases in net worth of $5,000 in 2003 and around $4000 in both 2004 and 2005.

If your net worth is going up by almost 10% a year then putting a bit less into savings isn't exactly a disaster. People giving up a little basic savings to gain massive value in real property and investments is a GOOD thing.

More on your other point later - I have a lunch date.

Dave

i find it interesting that the vast majority of "good news" pointed out revolves around those who are already in an advantageous position...

i'll leave it as an excercise for the gentle Readers to look stuff over in this light

take out those making over $100,000 per annum and those below recognized poverty level.. then work the numbers and look at the results

it gets even clearer when you up it to $250,000 income and those under $25,000 per year...

that's just the financial...now, look at those income figures inlight of the actual demographics...

how many americans in each category

one thing i notice is that for those who used to make $100,000 and up have improved much as is intimated in this Post...whereas many in what woudl have been considered "middle class" categories have either stagnated, or at the lower end...dropped down a category

not making any conclusion here, but the demographic numbers when aded to the financial statistics paint a very different picture, imo.. and show just where the disconnect could be coming from

for those in the over $100k category, things look pretty decent, and better the higher up you go

for those under $100k..it's a far different world

check for yourself, and make your own decisions..NEVER rely on ANY partisan for unbiased information...

you'll NEVER get it

Excelsior?

i find it interesting that the vast majority of "good news" pointed out revolves around those who are already in an advantageous position...

Well of course, that's inevitable, because the more money you have the more you gain if there's economic growth. You can't make money if all you have is a salary and there's never anything left over. This is why those below a fairly high threshold are expected to pay no taxes at all, because if they have no excess income they shouldn't have to give what little they do have to the government.

take out those making over $100,000 per annum and those below recognized poverty level.. then work the numbers and look at the results

it gets even clearer when you up it to $250,000 income and those under $25,000 per year...

that's just the financial...now, look at those income figures inlight of the actual demographics...

how many americans in each category

It might be helpful if you at least provided a link to the source of your figures here so that readers could actually go out and see what you're talking about.

one thing i notice is that for those who used to make $100,000 and up have improved much as is intimated in this Post...whereas many in what woudl have been considered "middle class" categories have either stagnated, or at the lower end...dropped down a category

A household income of $100,000 is the HEART of the middle class.

for those under $100k..it's a far different world

Maybe for those under $50K things are significantly different, but the middle class citizens in the $50K to $100K range have been among the largest beneficiaries of economic growth.

check for yourself, and make your own decisions..NEVER rely on ANY partisan for unbiased information...

This I can certainly endorse as well. That's why I provide so many links - I'd like people to go out and learn for themselves. The best way to fight deception is for people to be informed.

Dave

dave...i don't provide links most of the time quite deliberately...

since my Thought is that those interested will find what they want on their own, and don't need me to spoon feed them

also, there are always those who will argue sources, so again..i let them find their own and encourage them to make up their own minds based on what they come up with

now Dave sez...
*A household income of $100,000 is the HEART of the middle class.*

and here we hit a wall defining our terms...

my contention is that if you go over that $100k number, you aren't "middle"..."upper middle" at the least...

as i stated, look at the demographic numbers as well as fiscal and ponder it for yourself

i think everyone woudl be better served by doing so rather than the current partisan half Truths and incomplete "pictures" that are deliberately skewed to make their partisan points

a MUCH more complex Issue than EITHER *side* wants people to believe.. and one, as i pointed otu earlier, that is easily manipulated by BOTH sides

take it for what it's Worth

Excelsior?

since my Thought is that those interested will find what they want on their own, and don't need me to spoon feed them

What, are you giving a test in remedial googling? A lot of people don't know where to start to find this info. And they aren't going to take your numbers seriously if they can't figure out where they came from and verify them.

also, there are always those who will argue sources, so again..i let them find their own and encourage them to make up their own minds based on what they come up with

As someone pointed out earlier, there ARE neutral sources you could be using, and we'd actually like to see your sources so we can see what biases you're promoting. Are you afraid to show us?

now Dave sez...
*A household income of $100,000 is the HEART of the middle class.*

and here we hit a wall defining our terms...

my contention is that if you go over that $100k number, you aren't "middle"..."upper middle" at the least...

I'd divide the middle class into upper and lower with $100,000 as the dividing line and $50K as the low end and $200K as the top end.

i think everyone woudl be better served by doing so rather than the current partisan half Truths and incomplete "pictures" that are deliberately skewed to make their partisan points

I provide links to mostly neutral sources. I provide those links so people can check the facts behind my reasoning. THAT is how I fight partisan half-truth, by providing easy access to the whole truth.

Dave

Dave...don't take it so persoanlly, did i even come close to slamming you or even mentioning your name in my diatribes on this Thread?

as for your saying...
*And they aren't going to take your numbers seriously if they can't figure out where they came from and verify them.*

please note i don't give "hard numbers" but instead offer my analysis and tell folks to do their own and find the data

note also i said "for those interested" in response to your "remedial googling" remark...

as for the $50k low end, 100k threshold for "upper" and 250k for top limit...that's not too bad...

but again, i say check the US Census for the actual demographics of how those lines divide for actual distinctions (that's to the readers, not you Dave)

see how many folks fall into which categories..and as i suggested, watch how that skews when you take out the top and bottom 5%

that all being said, i'll bail from your Thread, Dave...i wasn't going to touch it, but ::points up to Lono::... my Name was invoked

and you know us daemons, always showing up when you speak our Names

Excelsior?

1. The percent of workers with retirement plans dropped 3% (aprox 9 million people) from 49% to 46% in 2000-2004 (the last year of data).

An interesting but separate issue, and one which has to be met with the question 'why?' I may go looking for the answer, but I suspect it lies in the large number of people offered early retirement and therefore no longer listed on their retirement plans by major corporations which have been trimming their workforces to reduce overhead.

2. Americans saved 209 billion less in 2005 than in 2001.

And increased their net worth by 4.8 trillion more in 2005 than in 2001. Are you getting the pattern here? The year where savings was high was the year where people went negative on net assets and the year where savings were low was the year when they bought houses and invested at record rates.

3. Americans saved less in total 2001-2005 than in any other 5 year period since 1967-1971, which is only because the population was less in 1971.

Americans increased their net worth by more in 2001-2005 than in any other 5 year period which the BEA has stats for, including the 1967-1971 period. Net worth increased 29% in that 5 year period. Net worth went up about $12 trilion in that period. Some other periods where overall net worth was lower have higher percentage increases, but a 29% increase is still very good.

4. The savings rate was negative in 2005 for the first time since data collection began.

All that means is that people took money out of the bank and used it for downpayments on their new houses. It did not cause their net worth to go down - quite the opposite - therefore it's not the evil thing it might appear to be.

6. The percentage of people with private health insurance was 71.9% under Clinton 2000. And then it precipitously fell every year to 67.7% in 2005 under Bush in 2005. Contrast this with the 1.7% increase in private insurance rates 1993-2000 under Clinton.

I'd hardly call a drop of less than a percentage point a year 'precipitous'. It falls within the general pattern of fluctuation of the rate of insurance coverage.

Oh, and going back to the retirement issue, I've done some more research and it appears that Dean's figures are also just wrong - which I didn't even bother to mess with in the article itself. My initial research suggests that general retirement benefit participation is up substantially in the last 5 years, but I'm going to check some more to nail down hard numbers. The BLS changed the way they tracked retirement in 2003 so it's a bit confusing.

Dave

"Lets look at what Dave tells us: 1. 7% more workers have retirement plans than did in 1980.

Lets look at what Dave doesnt tell us: 1.All of this growth took place prior to Bush coming into office and is now 3% lower than in 2000.

The article is NOT about what Bush's role here is.

Quite contrary, you tell us in the article: "but there's no question that Republican economic policies, especially tax cuts and reforms, have pulled us out of a serious recession, created a strong recovery and are launching us into a period of record economic growth and prosperity."

You then go on to explain that Dems are having to economy bash and lie to take the economy card away from the GOP. If you base this on the premise we are entering "record economic growth and prosperity," any statistics I can lay my hands on showing downward trends during the Bush years are completely relevant. I have already shown there to be a 5 year downward trend in private insurance owndership, an increase in uninsurance percentages, a decrease in personal savings rates and record low total savings for 2001-2005 compared to any 5 year period back to 1970, and a decrease in retirement plan ownership. All this seems to directly contradict "record economic growth and prosperity."

That being said Dean's statement about gauranteed pensions is a bit dishonest. He can't have wanted to conceal the increase in plans of all types since 1980 b/c he says in the same quote that 46% hold plans today. If he was really trying to conceal that he wouldnt have said them in the same quote. He may just be highlighting the decrease in gauranteed pensions and the recent decrease in all plan types (49% in 2000 to 46% in 2004). Certainly if he's trying to blame Bush for the decrease in gauranteed pensions, that's just silly (and dishonest), but his point about the 3% decrease in plans overall still stands.

I have to go to work, but there's some things I want to come back to.

Classic Bliffle #70 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Can numbing repetition of lies about the economy turn voters into zombies who vote against their own best interests?"

I don't know, Dave. Let us know how it turns out for you.

Dave Nalle:

"You'll note that I didn't use as examples anyone who was critical of the deficit or high levels of spending, because those are legitimate and genuine concerns."

And maybe because you have a history of attacking the left, solely for being left.

How about this for endless mantra repeating:

IT'S THE WAR STUPID
IT'S THE WAR STUPID
IT'S THE WAR STUPID
IT'S THE WAR STUPID
IT'S THE WAR STUPID
IT'S THE WAR STUPID

Nice mantra, but I'm not actually convinced by the mindless repetition. History suggests that the economy trumps the war in influencing voters.

Dave

Finally I found one article that talks about the DOW hitting an all time high and then maintaining that high.

Sheesh!

The stock market is a whole different issue, but I also find it remarkable that aside from a brief mention in the daily market summary there are no feature stories on it on TV or radio news. I guess there are more important things to cover, though I'll be damned if I'm hearing any stories on them either.

Dave

Dave,
I will usually find myself agreeing with you on so many matters, you're pretty diverse in your thinking on so many subjects and at the top of the page I think that we have the same mindset.
Then it happens, you start quoting statistics and polls. Unfortunately, the "polls" or "studies", like the study on the upper middle class, with earnings of $100,000. to $500,000. would not reflect that (and don't hold me to this, it's only an example, but if it were researched I have a feeling my #s may better reflect reality) again, this study would not reflect that maybe 80% of those between 100 and 500 thousand would fall much closer to the $500,000. income. Probably about the 3 to 5 hundred thousand.

This is why I wouldn't throw polls and studies around, they're only as accurate as the people who conduct them want them to be. They set the levels of their study groups, so pretty much, in the real world they don't amount to much.

The other problem is that as soon as one of these looney tune clowns pop up with dispariging remarks you hop right on the band wagon and start hurling gross insults. This is disappointing in as much as you show yourself to be intelligent enough to realize that these remarks are usually indicative of lack of knowledge, as it is with the polls. I don't believe that you can look at those polls and actually find anything factual about them. You just strike me as way too smart.

If you believe, as I do, and as you reflect most of the time, that both the Dems and the Rep.s suck and both have reached such a low level of actual concern for the people , the citizens of this country, that it becomes almost impossible to figure who's telling the truth and who's tugging your dick.

As I said Dave, I have a lot of respect for your insight and knowledge, don't check them at the door when the opinions start coming in. Also, look closer at those studies and see who is responsible for them and if they have an agenda. I love'em when they're independant and factual, not dummied up with such a far stretch as 100,000 to 500,00. Let see what happens when it's 100,00 to 200,000.
Great article, but don't lose that generalized attitude that makes you so cute

Peter, the article I linked to about the people moving up in income has a lot more detail and it does break the income mobility analysis down in more detail. There's little question that EVERY income group shows significant movement upward when you use personal net worth as the basis for your analysis. The amount of upward movement is generally proportional to income, but once you pass the $50,000 or so threshold upward movement is almost inevitable unless you retire. The point being that as those earning $200K to $500K move up over $500K people earning $100K to $200K move up to take their place, and in turn people earning $50K to $100K move up to take their place.

Plus when we see the figures for this year there's going to be a strengthening of this trend. While the real estate market has slowed in most parts of the country, investment - and over half of the nation now owns stock - will take over so net worth will keep growing even with a slowing of the real estate market which drove upward movement for the last 3 years.

Dave

It's appalling that you're considering those making between $50K & $100K as being the middle class. Most working people make a helluva lot less than that. MY definition of the working class would be $30K to $75K. You get up into the $100K brackets, you're talking quite a bit of disposable income, because even if it is tied up in an overpriced McMansion, it's still there for the option of spending it on said McMansion or not. People with $100K or in that area are pretty well off, all things considered. They're hardly in the class of those who, as Dave points out, have a salary and nothing else. Also, my understanding of the classic definition of the middle class is precisely that we are talking about the preponderance of the population, i.e. the characteristics of the bulk of the people. Which means that if the median income of the greater part of the population is only $15K, then that is what is middle class, and not what is some ivory-tower theoretical economist's concept.

Nancy

I am sorry for your situation. I know you don't make much money - but the rest of America is. My daughter just graduated from a 2 year college. Her starting wage is $17 an hour. Her soon to be husband (2 year general ed. degree) took the first job he could find - he makes $13 an hour. Do the math and that is $60K a year for 2 kids starting out. Both of their jobs have the potential to double their salaries within the next 5 years. This is more realistic than the gloom you write about.

No, no, no. I wasn't talking about ME, Maurice; I was just pointing out that if the level of income of MOST workers is at a certain level, then THAT is the median, & that defines what is the "middle class", not what some policy wonk designates. Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear. Has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

In any event, from what I read the median income is nowheres near the $100K level, but closer to what you all have designated as the "low end" i.e. around $50K.

But thank you for your kind sympathy anyway; I do really appreciate it. ;) I really do.

Must be cold up there in your neck of the woods now, hey? Snow yet? Aren't you glad you don't live in Buffalo?

Nancy

you are killing me. I have provided this link to Boise weather before. You will notice we are in the 60s all week. Boise rarely gets snow. We are surrounded by mountains that get lots of snow and then we ski on them. Boise its self is very moderate.

The median household income is somewhere between $50K and $60K depending on how you calculate it. That defines the middle class.

But that doesn't mean that those earning $50-$100,000 aren't part of the middle class too.

The situation right now is that so many people have moved up in wealth that the definition of middle class has to be very broad.

From a functional standpoint the middle class should be those people who live off of a paycheck rather than some sort of specialized compensation package or dividends or interest. It should be pretty much the same as the working class.

And as Maurice pointed out, if you have a husband and wife who both work at long-term jobs rather than temporary employment like WalMart, it's hard for them not to make at least $50K a year together.

Nancy, the middle class IS defined by what people make, and our middle class is affluent and moving on towards greater affluence all the time.

Dave

Sorry: I've got this mental image of the north central states - especially those up against the mts. - always being inundated by waves of arctic cold from the Canadian shield. A friend of mine lives in Montana, and according to him, it's always either maniacally hot or freezing. Plus there's all these old photo images of stock frozen to death up against fences, etc. Shoot - you all are warmer than we are here in MD, at the moment, if it's in the 60s!

just a Point here...

Dave sez...
*There's little question that EVERY income group shows significant movement upward when you use personal net worth as the basis for your analysis.*

and here's one of the common flaws in methodology

most analysis in this debate uses this very number of "personal net worth" andthen big averages across the entire population...which skews due to the huge disparity (hence my earlier points about the top and bottom 5% as well as Census demographics to get a clearer picture)

when calculating the actual net worth..one must account for both inflationary changes and purchasing power...

my general rule of thumb is to look at the numbers in question then examine the time periods prices for a loaf of bread and a gallon of gasoline

ficticious example to show the point: if in year X bread was 25 cents and gas was a dollar, you can take the wage in Question and note the purchasing power against those prices to establish a 1 to 1 ratio per single hour of wage..we will call it $5 for our example...so one hour of labor in this example could purchase 4 gallons of gas and 4 loaves of bread in total

now in year Y we postulate that bread is a dollar, gas is $2 and the wage $7.50 then yes, it is True that the wage earned has grown 50%...butthat said wage will no longer purchase 4 of each unit(bread and gas) but a smaller fraction

hence one could claim a rise in wage, but in Reality isita decline due to the reduced purchasing power of said wage

that was a ficticious example to show how the Variables can bemanipulated by discounting pertinent factors

if interested, try the same example for any two time periods you like using official data and be suprised and dismayed by the actual results

Excelsior?

I suspect those who are Cheerleaders for BushCo economics are hoping that nobody notices that stats can be so easily manipulated to show whatever the writer damn well pleases. It's only when someone exposes the man behind the curtain with something a little more concrete, like your example ....

Dittos gonz and Nancy...and it looks like Nalle is calling on his high school experiences as a male cheerleader...

Back to the point of Dave's ridiculous article.
The democrats constant repeating of a "big lie".
Is it the lie you are writing about or the repeating of one?

Me thinks that the class Dave writes for (the Repulicans) has numerous examples worse than James Carville, to point to:

"stay the course"
"cut and run"

Now let's see as we get closer to the elections, if the GOP continues to repeat these "big lies" over and over again......hmmm......well no, because if "IT'S THE WAR STUPID" is true, then BushWackedInc. would serve itself well NOT to bring it up at all. So cancel the above "big lies" being repeated for the next 2 weeks.

But our esteemed author and talking head for the right may be onto something here.....talk about the economy, talk it up, it's the only bright light in otherwise dimlit(wit) administration. Rove using some of Carville's own medicine is telling the President "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID".
Pelosi and Dean are falling into the trap and trying to dispel the facts that Dave Nalle so adeptly spins to defie any logic and BINGO the Republicans can ride there own "big lie" right into the booths.

Meanwhile, if the liberals had any brains left, they would continue to flog BushCo. with the facts of "IT'S THE WAR STUPID" and although the morons want to point to economy, they should make the case that THE WAR is fueling it.

Bingo!

The Stock Market hitting new record highs are mentioned daily on the evening news and CNN.

I'll restate my predictions...

Within a month after the elections I predict the market to fall to around 10,500 to 10,750 which is were it belongs and is its true value. The rich know this, and will have gotten out already leaving the lower incomes to lose their money that they foolishly invested thinking the market would just keep climbing.

The market is up to make the economy look good, because the upper income percentile folks have suddenly realized that it's only up for them, and until now were completely unaware that it wasn't for everyone.

The rich get richer-the poor gets poorer... and the middleclass is becoming an endangered species.

We're seeing a slump in new and used house sales and that will continue because no one wants to buy something that will decrease in value when that's the item their main net worth is based on... and like it or not Dave real estate values are falling and it's become a seller's market and will continue to be... why? because the disappearing middle class can't afford the payments or the interest on the payments any more.

The price of gas at the pump will hit $3.50 again before Christmas becuuse the oil companies are laying low and not taking as much profit so no one ewill notice. This favors the republicans, whom they need in office. Big oil is counting on the short memory span of the typical American voter to not recall the outrage that they felt earlier this year o